The only Daft Punk song I can recognize from a group of other random, B-grade electronica is Rollin & Scratchin... that is the name, right? and only because I have the video... I couldn't pick them out of a crowd of Groove Armada, prodigy, moby or anything else.



Fact is, the reason I'm such a Chem's snob is they're the only 'electronic' act that sounds at all different than every other electronic act out there... to me at least.

yeah that too stash.....you go

chemd'up Escribi�:

yeah that too stash.....you go

you confuse me chemd up :? Are you, or arent you a fan of Daft Punk?



would the real chemd up please stand up! :P

eh......isnt' it obvious?!!!!





READ my last few psts!

chemd'up Escribi�:

eh......isnt' it obvious?!!!!





READ my last few psts!

well from the last few post i would say no





but then why the hell are you buying all those really exspensive dolls and have daft punk in your sig? and in the other thread you were excited to see them live? :? :?



you really are sending mixed messages :? or are you a "flip flopper"? ;-) :P

All this talk about Daft Punk being better than Chems, Chems being better than Daft - really at the end of the day it's what you want to listen to, isn't it?



Or if you're chem'd up, who has the coolest action figures. X-D Just kidding.



Anyway, here's my thoughts from someone (yours truly) who is right alongside sneakerbeater in terms of liking Daft Punk. And please let's spare the DAT argument, it's tired as fuck.



What Daft Punk have going on is a gimmick, a schtick - it's kind of cool I think. The robot get-ups, the stage get-up that looks like something out of Tron (not necessarily a bad thing) minimal gear to create minimal music. The gimmick has worked out well for Daft Punk, it delivered something to the fans who've waited for so long and that's great, it really is!



But if anyone's going to compare the Chems to Daft Punk, you might as well compare apples to oranges. What I don't understand is why people think the Chems should revamp or reconsider how they work on stage - so now Tom and Ed should start wearing robot suits and twiddling knobs and pushing buttons inside a glowing pyramid? Quite frankly, I enjoy the physical and emotional impact a Chems show enough as it is, just as it is. There is something about it that's polished in the middle, but a bit rough and pragmatic on the edge. If the Chems were to suddenly adopt the Daft approach... well, it would be pretty much like how I felt when U2 started dressing up as the village people in order to get their point across when they toured the globe promoting POP. Daft dressing up as robots is great for Daft, but Tom and Ed would look shamefully ridiculous if they tried to pull off that stunt. I'll take Tom wearing the same lucky tank t-shirt and raggedy jeans and Ed's curly mop any day of the week because that is who they are - they don't need to be anyone different cuz that's not their schtick.



And To say the Chems sets have not varied in terms of mixing, technique and overall style and production over the years is, well - that's just not right.. And it's not really fair to the Chems either if you think about it. I am sorry, but I know I am not that deaf in my old age as to think their songs have not been reworked and revamped, cut up and spliced to add a bit of freshness with each tour. That's like saying the Chems have not progressed one iota musically since Exit Planet Dust and whether you favor their old stuff or their new stuff - we know those kinds of statements simply are not true.



Bah. I'm done.

:D

Well done Whirly for, once again, restoring sanity to an arguement that had till then, broken down into total chaos!

Cheeky Escribi�:

hmm.. well, basically all you need to play live today is a laptop.. and a midi-controller for easier use! you surely dont need all the fancy gear the chems have on their live shows, though it looks cooler! i can bet The Chems arent even using 1/3 of the equipment surrounding them.. but hey, its part of the show! ;-)

Nearly all the gear they have on stage is used to do something in the live, but I think most of it is automatically controlled, and the Chems don't have to do things on it.



Every single electronic performer may have been accused at least one time to play a DAT and jump all around to do like if he was performing all this live, because electronic music, unlike "traditional" music has to be controlled half by a human, half by a midi-recording.

Nevertheless, some bands really seem to do nothing but launching a Cubase file and jumping all around on stage (M. Howlett, if you're reading me )

Ben_j Escribi�:

Cheeky Escribi�:

hmm.. well, basically all you need to play live today is a laptop.. and a midi-controller for easier use! you surely dont need all the fancy gear the chems have on their live shows, though it looks cooler! i can bet The Chems arent even using 1/3 of the equipment surrounding them.. but hey, its part of the show! ;-)

Nearly all the gear they have on stage is used to do something in the live, but I think most of it is automatically controlled, and the Chems don't have to do things on it.



Every single electronic performer may have been accused at least one time to play a DAT and jump all around to do like if he was performing all this live, because electronic music, unlike "traditional" music has to be controlled half by a human, half by a midi-recording.

Nevertheless, some bands really seem to do nothing but launching a Cubase file and jumping all around on stage (M. Howlett, if you're reading me )

hehehehehe...

whirlygirl Escribi�:

All this talk about Daft Punk being better than Chems, Chems being better than Daft - really at the end of the day it's what you want to listen to, isn't it?

Yep, and people who want to listen to the Chems are cool, have impeccable taste and are always welcome in my house, and people who prefer to listen to Daft Punk are trendy poseur poofters.

toomuch'stash Escribi�:

whirlygirl Escribi�:

All this talk about Daft Punk being better than Chems, Chems being better than Daft - really at the end of the day it's what you want to listen to, isn't it?

Yep, and people who want to listen to the Chems are cool, have impeccable taste and are always welcome in my house, and people who prefer to listen to Daft Punk are trendy poseur poofters.

And People who like both? :'(

mX. Escribi�:

toomuch'stash Escribi�:

whirlygirl Escribi�:

All this talk about Daft Punk being better than Chems, Chems being better than Daft - really at the end of the day it's what you want to listen to, isn't it?

Yep, and people who want to listen to the Chems are cool, have impeccable taste and are always welcome in my house, and people who prefer to listen to Daft Punk are trendy poseur poofters.

And People who like both? :'(

bisexual.



no, I don't mean any of that, I'm just takin' the piss, ain't I?

Ok, when i posted this topic, i wasn't implaying that i like Daft punk more the Chems, i was just saying (as someone already mentioned) that DP have raised the bar when it comes to live performance for electronic artist.

I realise that hype about them not performing live for 8 years added to the 'greatness' of that show.



I have been a fan of Chems since 1996, but that still does not stop me from being objectively critical of their work. Last thing i want Tom and Ed to do is to dress up as Monkeys or do some other gimmicky shit.

Being weird and different is a part of Daft Punk's image and that is fine.



But my point was that Chems should try to change the structure and 'rigidity' of their shows for the future. I have seen them preform live twice and have at least 8 different live sets from '97 to '05, and to be honest i just dont see that much variations in them.



Yes I know some of the variations are subtle, like the extended 'beeeeep' during hoops, or faster breakbeat during 'BRB' (i don't know why everybody uses 'Hey Boy, Hey Girl' as an example about how the sets have changed, as that songs has probably changed the least over the years). What Chems need is a fresh structure of their set for the future.



I guess i wanted to start a bit of an argument with this topic, not regarding which band is better ( Chems are a better band by a mile), but regarding which live set is currently more interesting.



Considering that these forums will be dead for at least 2 years we might as well have a bit of arguing to do ( adult, objective arguing 'stash')

I wouldn't be against some Tom and Ed action figures.



And I liked U2's Village People impersonation. Discotheque rocks. Hard. In a gay way. But a good gay way.



I'd like to see Daft Punk and the evidence looks good on their show, but it'll take a ways yet before I think they're at the levels of the Chems.

Alchemist Escribi�:

Yes I know some of the variations are subtle, like the extended 'beeeeep' during hoops, or faster breakbeat during 'BRB' (i don't know why everybody uses 'Hey Boy, Hey Girl' as an example about how the sets have changed, as that songs has probably changed the least over the years). What Chems need is a fresh structure of their set for the future.

Remember the demo version of HBHG they did in 97 :P And in the Come with us tour, HBHG was pretty different from now and before.

Alchemist Escribi�:

I guess i wanted to start a bit of an argument with this topic, not regarding which band is better ( Chems are a better band by a mile), but regarding which live set is currently more interesting.

And I think its an interesting topic to debate indeed. :)



Even though I?ve never seen either the Chemical Brothers or Daft Punk Live, I?ve seen clips of both of these groups on video(s). And I must agree with Alchemist about what he says with Daft Punk being more interesting Live.



Daft Punk has totally created a new way for electronic acts to play live. Instead of playing their tunes in a set list kind of fashion and simply mixing at the end of each song (ala chemical brothers), they have taken all their songs and created a "gigantic mashup." From the videos ive seen, they have 3 or 4 of their own songs playing or being sampled at the same time! These "giant reworked mashups" of their own songs, sounds better then the original studio made songs. And any time your live production sounds better then your recorded studio stuff, you know your doing something right.



Unfortunately, I cant say the same for the Chemical Brothers. From what I?ve seen from bootlegs/videos/live DVD (whatever). Some of tracks that are re-created in their live sets doesn?t give justice to some of the studio made tracks that they have made. But, what the Chemical Brothers do hold over Daft Punk, is the great epical tracks that can take people to a different dimension!



I want to see both, but Daft Punk has definitely shocked me and grabbed my attention with this new way of producing live music. Its cool, fresh, and sounds awesome.



Like I said before, its cool to see that there is a live electronic act to compete with the chemical brothers. It should be interesting to see how all electronic acts react to this unbelievable performance daft punk put on Saturday night. And again, as of right now, whether you like it or not, daft punk rules the electronic nation :P 8)

I think they look good live but why didnt they tour with discovery or human after all? At least Ed and Tom have allways been giving the fans a great tour every album and sometimes in between.

Thanks Bosco, there is finnaly somebody who understands my point of view and is using an objective argument.

The way Daft Punk build up songs on top of one another or simple continuous 'cut outs' of the same songs that build up, make it so much more interesting in the live 'environment' (clubs, festivals, concerts).



Ben_j - as you said, back in '97 HBHG was just a demo version, but we are talking about a versions of it since it became a regular part of the set - since early '99 onwards - and in that period i just haven't seen any major change.



I won't get into a debate of how much of the equipment each band uses live and how exactly do they use it, as this is one of those things that none of us know for sure. When looking at all of the Chems live clips it seems that sometimes both Ed and Tom are running all over the place, pushing the buttons and twisting the knobs for some songs.

Then other times both of them would spend majority of the song time just standing there, dancing or waving to the audience, just occasionally touching the mixer or the drum machine.



I think Ed spends the most time doing very little - either dancing , walking around, waving and occasionally touching the equipment in the background.

Daft Punk seem to be using more of the computers to mix their live shows on the current tour.[/quote]

Alchemist Escribi�:

I think Ed spends the most time doing very little - either dancing , walking around, waving and occasionally touching the equipment in the background.

Even though Ed is in the background I still think he contributes as much as Tom. Tom seems to mix and play with the drum marchine whilst Ed works hard at the back with effects and constucting the tracks. IMHO

I can understand the constructive criticism, fair points have been made I suppose but it's very difficult for me not to let the emotions get in the way. I can admit it.



I guess for me the impact of a Chems show lies in how it affects me emotionally and physically. Each time I've heard them has felt different, markedly Come With Us was very much a mashup of their tunes at the beginning of the songs. I remember thinking they were going one place in one song and ended up taking me someplace else with another tune entirely.



Hearing my favorite tunes live will always trump everything else.



I also think there's some hefty Chemical burnout going on here. Only got some shifty Chems bootleg recordings and the same live DVD to go by to compare with a few fresh Daft Punk snippets... that goes in line pretty much with what Ed said when he came here and said in essence we shouldn't be holding our breath for a live DVD.

ACIDCHILDREN Escribi�:

Alchemist Escribi�:

I think Ed spends the most time doing very little - either dancing , walking around, waving and occasionally touching the equipment in the background.

Even though Ed is in the background I still think he contributes as much as Tom. Tom seems to mix and play with the drum marchine whilst Ed works hard at the back with effects and constucting the tracks. IMHO

Thank you, ACIDCHILDREN. I would hate to see this turn into yet another one of those who-does-what/who-does-more type threads. Unless we get a grand pre-gig behind the sound check guide by Tom and Ed themselves where they map out what they each do live, it's not right to assume anything.